Google Docs, which I’m composing this post in, does not recognize the word “masculist.” Nor does Chrome; nor does OpenOffice. It’s a new word, though not, I think, a new concept, and I think there’s room for it to become as recognized, as accepted, and even as derided as feminism.
Ozymandias’s post that kicked off this blog includes a good introduction to the idea, and it’s in our FAQ, so it may seem presumptuous of me to define the term. But this being my introductory post, I want to define the term for me. That is, here is why I, a feminist, am also a masculist:
- I believe in gender irrelevance. There are precious few things in life that require a particular reproductive configuration, and fewer still that require a particular gender.
- I think victims of domestic violence and sexual assault deserve to be heard and believed. If that’s a feminist position, which it is, it’s even more a masculist position: individual women may not be believed nearly as much as they ought to be, but few people deny the very existance of rape and abuse tarketing women. The idea of men being victimized, especially by women, is barely even acknowledged.
- I don’t like sentences that begin “men are …” or “men do …” or the negatives of those sentences. Gender should be neither a conclusion nor an instruction, but mere information. A man is anyone who says he’s a man, and he is entitled to behave as he wants even if you don’t think it’s male behavior.
I’ve mentioned several times in this post that I’m both a masculist and a feminist. The two aren’t incompatible. Nothing I’ve mentioned is opposed to or by mainstream feminism. Freeing men from our gender roles doesn’t require confining women to theirs.
If anything, it requires the opposite. As long as there are things women must and can’t do, there will be things men can’t and must do. Liberating women will liberate men, and liberating men will liberate women.
Just as feminism and masculism are inextricably bound together, so too are misogyny and misandry (anther word Google Docs doesn’t recognize, which is equally troubling). Simply put, if one half the human race is so very dreadful, and the other half happily interacts with them, it says nothing good about the latter. And this works both ways: if men are violent hateful rapists, women who seek them out are clearly deeply flawed; if women are soul-sucking harpies, men who seek them out are volunteer victims at best.
aliarasthedaydreamer
Ami Angelwings
Hershele Ostropoler
Cheradenine
jlandrith
kaija24
2020
noahbrand
Cliff Pervocracy
ozymandias
Shora
sirgabe
figleaf
John Hawkins
No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz? 
Wow, I am not surprised “masculist” doesn’t exist but I would have expected “misandrist/misandry” to! Though my spell-checker tells me they don’t exist too. 😛
I cannot begin to describe how any sentence involving “wo/men do/like/are” makes me grind my teeth (yes, I am exactly as pissed off by such sentences regarding men as women). It seems that many people cannot help themselves. I try and say something light that erodes the gender essentialism without always making it a thing, but sometimes it’s unbelievably frustrating.
My opinion is on the fence about the construction of masculist to complement feminist. I’m not opposed to it, but having no history as it does it feels a bit redundant and if we were going that way I’d be more inclined to find a less exclusionary-sounding word that encompasses both (as feminism does to me) rather than having two.
That said, I can certainly appreciate a word that not only has less deliberate smearing against it as “feminism” does but also just sounds like men are welcome (since there are feminists who are not comfortable with men labelling themselves feminists, which makes me sad personally) could be really valuable.
How would it be redundant? If feminism is gender equality focused on women, then masculism is gender equality focused on men. It’s not redundant, it’s complementary (because arguably the former hasn’t done much of anything directly or solely for men). By the way, that other term you’re looking for does exist: Gender egalitarianism. 🙂 I talked about that quite a bit in my introductory post, if you’re interested in reading more on it.
My opinion is on the fence about the construction of masculist to complement feminist. I’m not opposed to it, but having no history as it does it feels a bit redundant and if we were going that way I’d be more inclined to find a less exclusionary-sounding word that encompasses both (as feminism does to me) rather than having two.
The thing is it doesn’t sound redundant to some (i’d bet a lot of) people. There’s no question that feminism has a primary focus on women. Fair enough. But what’s so redundant about a movement that primarily focuses on men. Yes it would be nice to see them both come together under a single banner, but that banner does not exist yet.
I wish this blog existed when I first started reading feminist blogs.
That is all.
Sure it does: “gender egalitarianism.” And you’re looking at it. (We’re not purely masculist here.)
@Darque: That means a lot to me/us. Thank you. I hope you continue reading and commenting.
The difference between feminism and masculism, to me, isn’t one of aim but of focus. So to a certain degree it is redundant, and I would like it to become more so, but the idea of a masculist movement is so feminists (of all genders) can tell people (of any gender) who complain about Patriarchy hurting men “well, there’s a movement for that.” That certainly doesn’t preclude the two groups working together and/or sharing members.
Perhaps I say that because you folks who operate under that just don’t seem to be too numerous. Well at least when compared to those who are strictly one or the other (despite what they may say).
I like what you are trying to do with the word “masculist,” but unfortunately I’ve often heard feminists use it to mean “male chauvinist” or “anti-feminist.” I’m not sure how common that usage is, but I’m not sure how many feminists acknowledge the existence of a gender egalitarian focused on men (except as perpetrators or oppressors).
While I agree with your second sentence, I’m not sure it’s the same thing as gender irrevelant. Gender is relevant because it is correlated with lots of things (some of which are real, and some of which are imaginary).
I agree that there is a danger in certain sorts of generalizations, but wariness about these generalizations shouldn’t blind us the existence of average differences between the genders (yes, even when the bell curves overlap).
I have a little objection here. Quite frankly this is something that puzzles me about this blog. As a disclaimer, after reading your faq I would say, I am pretty much with you and believe what your are trying to do is a good thing. What puzzles me is you linking to the finallyfeminism101 blog.
You said: I’ve mentioned several times in this post that I’m both a masculist and a feminist. The two aren’t incompatible. Nothing I’ve mentioned is opposed to or by mainstream feminism. Freeing men from our gender roles doesn’t require confining women to theirs.
Fair enough, coming back to finallyfeminism101 you will find definitions of sexism, oppression that excludes men and a definition of privilege that excludes women. That is imho contrary to a gender egalitarian point of view. Even more so, you can find an article that downplays the number of male DV victims. I have seen similar statements in a forum of academic feminist teachers so I am not sure if mainstream feminism is compatible with masculism (if we can agree that finallyfeminism101 (that is linked via the biggest feminist blog feministing and feministe) and academic feminism equals mainstream feminism).
I am aware that egalitarian feminists exists and that they do a great job (hooray for Clarisse Thorn) but you linking to the “very” gynocentric kind leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
It would be nice if you could clear this up.
Greets
Feckless
My own personal example of a person I think of as a “masculist” would be Michael Kimmel, a gender studies researcher and writer who focuses on mens’ issues in society. Although I don’t agree with everything he’s written–I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with anyone 100%, but I think that’s a good sign of recognizing that everyone has their own take on a issue and that I am a stubbornly independent thinker 🙂 –but he seems to look at issues with a broad lens, with the contributions of history, economics, politics, social shifts, and family life. I find his analysis and problem-solving ideas (and I like someone who doesn’t just point out problems but looks for places where we can implement solutions) to be compassionate and realistic. He is a father and a family person as well as a scholar, and often says that his young son is his motivation for trying to make the world a better place for boys. I highly recommend his book Manhood in America for a highly readable history of how society has shaped what we think of as “a man” throughout history and some insights as to the current shifts in social and gender roles.
It doesn’t really need clearing up, as it’s already been cleared up several times. It’s even in the FAQ. It’s very simple: Not everything we link to, is stuff we agree with. If you read Dr Mindbeam’s article on sexism you’ll notice he has already specifically criticised some of the writing on finallyfeminism101. I expect this will not be the last time we speak out against a piece of writing on a site we link to.
Please note that your comment is also off-topic for this post. If you want to discuss the sidebar, we already have a post for that.
I am a ridiculous fangirl of Michael Kimmel. The Gendered Society is probably the best modern introductory book to feminism I’ve ever read… it taught ME some shit. 🙂
Yeah, I like that he’s a gender egalitatarian/inclusionist who rejects extremes and wants us to take a broader look at the many forces acting on us and work together to make more room for everyone to breathe. He doesn’t separate everything into “men’s” and “women’s” issues but shows how they overlap with both critique and compassion, not just abstract analysis. I’ve learned a lot from reading his work as well and it’s made me rethink a lot of my assumptions and look at them from a wider perspective.
Thanks for the answer, the posts you linked cleared the position of this blog up pretty well.
I would like to disagree that my post was entirely off-topic though. Sure questioning ff101 on the sidebar was, but my other point still stands. You said “Nothing I’ve mentioned is opposed to or by mainstream feminism.”. The question is, would you consider ff101 (or the position they take regarding sexism, oppression, female privilege) mainstream feminism or not?
The site surely gets linked a lot in the feminist blogosphere and at least academic feminism (as analyzed on feministcritics -> http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2007/01/13/do-feminists-argue-that-men-are-oppressed/ ) seem to share a similar position. So there might be a problem with being a masculist and a (mainstream) feminist.
I don’t think so either, but on the other hand, I think it’s a fairly new idea. My hope is that more people realize that this is where they stand and will voice their support of such a notion. I’d like to believe that the average person on the street is interested in real equality for everyone. 🙂
Time to reclaim it, then! I believe that Hershele was using it in this sense.
We’re spreading the word as best we can 🙂 I think there are more of us than appear at first glance…there’s lots of sturm und drang from the extremes that make them seem more numerous just because they are louder, but I suspect there are lots of good folks in the middle struggling with issues that clearly affect us all.
This sounds like a writer I need to investigate!
I would define mainstream feminists as people who also agree that men can experience sexism. A large amount of what you see on the Internet, in my experience, tends to fall outside the beliefs of your average “feminist on the street.”
Regardless, Cheradenine is right. This is off topic to the discussion of Hershele’s post. If you want to discuss the sidebar links, please use the post linked above to do so. If you believe there is a significant problem — you find disproportionate amounts of egregiously bad content on f101 or another site we link to — please use the contact form to get in touch with us and we’ll take a look at it and try to address your concerns.
Thank you!
You might want to investifgate the copious criticism of Kimmel. He has been thoroughly criticized for misandry almost to the same extent as Hugo Schwyzer.
@Jim: Since I’ve now had several positive things said about him by people whose opinions I trust, would you like to elucidate me on specifically what you’re alleging?
Yes. And it gets away from the label “MRA” which has come to mean something different than masculism.
http://www.pbs.org/kued/nosafeplace/interv/kimmel.html
Michael Kimmel, well-known sociologist of gender in the pro-feminist men’s movement, and spokesman for the National Organization of Men Against Sexism (NOMAS):
Men MAY be oppressed, of course, but not as men. They are oppressed by race, class, sexuality, age, ethnicity, region, physical abilities etc.
http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2007/01/13/do-feminists-argue-that-men-are-oppressed/
Click to access GenderSymmetry.pdf
Wow. Lots of misandry in this stuff.
No Reply box left.
It’s been awhile and memory is vague, Let me look around and I’ll get back to you with specifics. These won’t be my assesment of him because I don’t have one, just what others have said.
What I recall was a kind of white-knighting tendency to blame men for everything, even quite young men, in the same general way that Higo Schwyzer tends to. It felt very 70’s hip man to me, and I envision him being abuot my age or older, if that conveys anything. (And I have no idea of his actual age or looks, just that he fit this profile for me.)
I think the reason “misandry” isn’t recognised as a word is because hatred of men already has a word. “Misanthropy” means hatred of men. Semantically it excludes women because women weren’t considered human. It’s only recently, as women have been considered part of the human race, that misanthropy has started to represent all people and not just men.
Having said that, in our brave new world, where misanthropy has been diluted, I think we need a word like misandry to differentiate between various ass hat behaviour.
Actually, “misanthropy” means the hatred of people or mankind. The prefix “anthropo-” derives from the Greek anthropos meaning “man or human being” and was also used for women. According to MW, misanthropy can be taken as “a hatred or distrust of humankind ” (from 1625) whereas misandry refers specifically to a hatred of men (and is dated at 1909).
One of my cartoons was reprinted in a Kimmel textbook. That really made my day. 🙂
Last time I checked, Kimmel denies that misandry really is a meaningful concept in the first place (in a hatchet job review of Nathanson and Young’s Spreading Misandry from Common Review Vol 1 No 3 that I can’t find anywhere now).
And as you point out in the link to my blog, Kimmel also denies that men can be oppressed on the axis of gender.
My other disagreement with Kimmel and many other pro-feminist men is over the concept of “homosociality.” Homosociality is clearly an important factor behind male behavior, but Kimmel fails to understand heterosexual and heterosocial pressures and incentives on masculinity. A lot of gendered male behavior makes a lot more sense when you look at the gendered female preferences and responses (of mainstream heterosexual women).
I tried really hard to like Kimmel, and his historical analyses are interesting, but after seeing his more extreme positions of denialism towards misandry and men’s oppression, I have trouble trusting and respecting him. His homosocial reductionist perspective on masculinity is a lesser flaw, but still disappointing. He has a lot of status within academic feminism, but in my opinion, he hides prejudiced gender politics behind well-crafted sentences. I’ll be more specific upon request, though I’m a few posts behind on my blog.
Denying misandry and oppression towards men is typical for academic pro-feminist men. To me, this stance smacks of chivalry and status-mongering.
Keep in mind that the “National Organization for Men Against Sexism” (NOMAS) that Kimmel is affiliated with consequently means “National Organization for Men Against Misogyny,” since its prominent members reject the concept of misandry. I will note that denialism towards misandry and male oppression is counter to the charter of this blog (which is part of why I’m a fan of it), yet these academic feminists enjoy incredible prestige within feminism. To me, this seems backwards: I think the feminists with more humane and inclusive views deserve the higher prestige, not people like Kimmel.
I think your critique of Kimmel is one-dimensional. You disagree with him on some issues, but it’s a pretty sure bet that you’d agree with him about other issues.
Here’s Kimmel writing about his son:
Kimmel is very aware of the ways boys and men are harmed by sexism, and he frequently includes that in his work. (Ditto for NOMAS, by the way.)
I’m not denying that there’s a real ideological difference between you and Kimmel/NOMAS; where you’d say that men and women are both oppressed, NOMAS would say that women are oppressed while men suffer “numerous sex role burdens and wounds.” But there’s also (I suspect) significant overlap between your views, which would probably show up a lot if you and Kimmel could sit down and talk about what policy initiatives you’d support.
Hi Amp, good to see you.
My previous comment was indeed focused on my disagreements with Kimmel, and my disagreements with him are easier to recall, because it’s been some time since I’ve read his writings. I didn’t mean to imply that his work lacks value in general. I think you are quite correct that I would agree with a lot of his ideas, and we would have similar views about policy initiatives.
I am aware that Kimmel and NOMAS believe that sexism against women harms boys and men, and I agree. But I haven’t seen Kimmel acknowledge sexism against men, aka “misandry.” As of 2002, he didn’t consider misandry to be a meaningful concept. Perhaps his views have changed. Do you have any particular examples in mind? Or perhaps he believes that sexism towards men exists, and just doesn’t like the word “misandry”?
As you might suspect, this distinction is a big deal to me, despite overlap in policy views that I might have with Kimmel. I expect that you would have trouble allying with the sorts of MRAs who think “misogyny” is merely “feminist victimology,” even if you have policy agreements with those MRAs.
Likewise, if an anti-racist activist said “Chicana women are oppressed, but Asian women are not oppressed and simply suffer numerous role burdens and wounds,” I would think “this person just doesn’t get it,” even if they support policies that aid both Chicana and Asian women. Furthermore, I would suspect that anyone who thinks that Chicana women experience racial oppression, but not Asian women, probably has deeper flaws in their thinking.
In the grand scheme of things, I find him relatively congenial as a feminist; I just find some of his theories toxic, and I feel that he should know better. It’s especially frustrating when I know that he knows a lot of the tough things men go through, but then turns around and says, “yeah, but that’s not oppression for realz.”
Last time I read Kimmel (Gendered Society, Manhood in America, some essays), I did feel like his conceptual framework limited his ability to truly empathize with men and understand certain stuff they deal with, even despite his attempts to do so. I’d have to look at it again to give it a fair treatment and explain what gave me that impression.
Not to jump into a conversation that I’m not a part of (although it’s been very interesting reading back and forth), but might some of the disagreement arise out of the definition of the word “oppression?” In other words, are some people (Kimmel, others) defining it in a way that others are not? It sounds as though in practice Kimmel is saying that men experience sexism and misandry and are in some ways oppressed, but is dancing around using those words. Is it possible he’s done this in order to gain credibility in academic feminism or some other circle?
What DMB is true but what you are talking about has occurred with ‘andros’ itself, or actually with its equivalent in Germanic, German ‘karl’, English ‘churl’. Both etyma refer not to malkes but specifically to grown men. “Andros” is the root for “Andreos’ > Andrew. The ‘karl’ etymon is also the basis for a personal name, >Karl, Charles, Karol, but it also has a female variant >Carla, Carol, etc. Though come to think of it, that is probably less because adulthood was associated with males in those languages; that is clear for the lexicon of all those languages, and more a case of the very common process of feminszing male names. There are few if any examples of masculized female names in Germanic languages.
DMB said:
I’d need to take a look at Manhood in America for his reasoning, but basically Kimmel and lots of other academic feminists think that shitty stuff that happens to women have some secret sauce that makes it “oppression,” while shitty things that happen to men do not.
I don’t actually think that Kimmel has a similar perspective to you or I about misandry and oppression, and is simply using different words. This is not just a semantic distinction. Kimmel actually seems to have a substantially different view. Kimmel acknowledges that men experience pain and suffering, but he considers it a side effect of men’s privilege and “aggregate power,” whatever that is. I’ve never seen him acknowledge any form of female-on-male oppression.
Here’s a revealing quote from his aftermath to Politics of Masculinity:
There are lots of things I could say about this quote, but first I’ll let others consider how consistent it is with the mission of this blog.
Hugh:
I’d need to take a look at Manhood in America for his reasoning, but basically Kimmel and lots of other academic feminists think that shitty stuff that happens to women have some secret sauce that makes it “oppression,” while shitty things that happen to men do not.
In my experience that secret sauce is often the pre-drawn conclusion that the system is specifically designed to keep men over women (which is often what I get when I challenge that wonderful piece of lip service “patriarchy hurts men too). By that design any and all intentional gender based harms are meant to target women and anything that befalls men is just a collateral damage. In short if you start off with the conclusion that women are the primary victims of everything then of course the things that happen to men will seem….less important.
When MRAs say misogyny is “feminist victimology,” they’re saying that women’s complaints are illegitimate, which is connected to their opposition to virtually all policies, organizations and actions that are trying to address misogyny. And that’s why I can’t collaborate with them — the policies I favor, are the policies they passionately oppose. (I’d align with an anti-feminist on something we actually agreed on — i.e., I wouldn’t refuse to speak at an anti-drug-war rally if it turned out that Christina Hoff Sommers was a speaker at the same event.)
When NOMAS says that men suffer “numerous sex role burdens and wounds,” they are saying that men do have legitimate complaints. That’s not at all the same as what you compared it to, obviously.
I’ve mentioned this to you before, but: One of the biggest ways that men are harmed by sexism is the hugely disproportionate numbers of men injured and killed at the workplace. We could do a lot to help that by reducing job segregation, by increasing OSHA’s reach and powers, and by increased unionization. I’ve never met a feminist who wouldn’t agree to all that; I’ve met a ton of MRAs who’d oppose all of that. I bet you favor all of that. I bet Michael Kimmel does, too.
So no, not the same thing at all.
Does anyone in the real world think that? You’re caricaturing his view, not summarizing it.
A better analogy would be someone who says “white people don’t experience racist oppression in a white-dominated culture; white people might suffer and be discriminated against, but “racist oppression” as I use it is a term of art that refers to what people of color experience in a society that systematically puts white people at the top of the racial hierarchy.”
That’s something that actual people say — and they say it not because they hate white people, not because they’re idiots, but because they think based on observation that our society systematically puts white people at the top of the racial hierarchy, and they want a word that expresses that.
Some feminists, influenced by anti-racist analysis, make a similar claim about sexist oppression — again, not because they’re idiots, nor because they hate men, but because they think based on observation that our society systematically puts men at the top of the sexual hierarchy, and they want a word that expresses that.
I don’t agree with that, on a few grounds. (I think it would make more sense to make up a new word than redefine an old word, I don’t think sexism and racism are actually parallel in structure, and I think focusing too much on who is and isn’t oppressed leads to unproductive discussions — a criticism I’d make of your view too.) But it’s not the pure nonsense you’re painting it as.
Yup. And I don’t think I have ever seen “masculist” used to mean “misogynist,” which is not to say it doesn’t happen.
Here are some examples of masculism used in a pejorative way, from the Wiktionary article (click on quotations):
The Wiktionary definition is: “Advocacy of the rights of men, or promotion of those values etc. which are seen to be typically male; machismo; (sometimes implicitly) anti-feminism.”
For other negative uses of “masculist” I found with a little Googling:
Julian Real:
This article criticizes masculism and uses it as a synonym for the men’s rights movement:
So it does seem that some reclamatory work would need to be done.
Very interesting. Thank you! In light of this, what do you think of our FAQ definition of the term? Would you suggest any additions/changes to this definition we have? (I think you have a fairly good idea of the stance this blog takes on its use of the terms “feminist” and “masculist” — that is, in their (forgive me) “true forms” non-competitive movements focusing on different sides of gender egalitarianism.)
I seem to recall reading “masculinist” as the not-an-MRA word, where “MRA” refers to a particular negative image. But, well, people use feminism pejoratively! So I figure I’ll just keep explaining that no, this is what I mean when I say that.
Amp, I’m going to try to narrow things down to the crux of our disagreement.
I’m glad you don’t make this sort of argument. You don’t think it’s pure nonsense. I think it’s mostly nonsense. Of course, we have different premises. I don’t think there is a singular “sexual hierarchy” that men are at the top of. I think there are multiple sorts of sexual hierarchies, some which have mostly men at the top, some which have mostly men at the bottom, and some which mostly have men at both the top and bottom.
Analogies of oppression of women to racial oppression are revealing and interesting when made rigorously, not just to dismiss the notion of oppression towards men. Analogies of oppression of men to racial oppression (e.g. Adam Jones notion of “men and minorities”) can also be revealing and interesting.
Without some explicit qualifiers, analogies of women to minorities, and men to white people only make sense by failing to take into account a lot of nasty stuff that happens to men… but doesn’t happen to white people. As a few examples, take higher male workplace death, high rates of childhood sexual abuse, higher rate of male incarceration, men’s lives considered disposable in conflict zones and lifeboat situations, and violence (including sexual violence) towards men considered funny in the media.
These are just a few of the issues that I think are noncontroversial to people here, yet they should already be enough to nuke any unqualified analogy of men:whites, women:minorities.
That’s true. But if they deny the label of “oppression” to men’s burdens and wounds, while granting it for women’s, what does that mean? It means that there is some “secret sauce” that women’s burdens and wounds have that men’s don’t. So I have to ask: what are the special characteristics uniquely belonging to shitty things that happen to women, and is it really true that shitty things happen to men lack those characteristics? Because if some feminists were incorrectly denying that shitty things happening to men have certain characteristics, that would be kinda busted.
So, what exactly is the secret sauce? Since I can’t quote Kimmel’s reasoning, let’s look at FF101’s argument for sexism towards men doesn’t exist. They admit that prejudice towards men exists, but they claim that without “institutionalized power,” it’s not actually sexism:
Yes, I suppose it’s nice that FF101 is so generous to acknowledge that prejudice towards men exists, but failing to call that prejudice “sexism” isn’t just a semantic distinction, it’s a symptom of other flaws in their analysis. For now, let’s set aside whether it’s fair to redefine sexism as prejudice + power, when others use it to mean prejudice.
We will focus on the secret sauce: “institutional power as a class.” Is it really true that men have institutional power, and women don’t? That’s a very bold statement.
Even though FF101 and I would undoubtedly share some policy goals, I am very troubled by their unwillingness to call prejudice towards men “sexism,” which makes me suspect that they are in ignorance or denial of the link between social institutions and prejudice towards men. The semantic issue is merely the tip of the iceberg of deeper disagreements.
Sarah Rean
Can you please provide a citation or legal definition that talks about men being considered human beings while women are not, a sources outside of feminist rhetric?
I’ve checked ALL of the black legal dictionaries and bouviers law dictionary (they are on line) and there is no such distinction.
“Mankind the race or species of human beings, in law females as well as males may be included under this term”
Blacks legal dictionary 1st edition.http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/1/M/m-0750.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture